Readers' comments

That may be true, but I'm loving the opportunity the internet has given me to see foreign election debates first hand. I very much enjoyed the debates between Messrs Obama and McCain, as I have enjoyed watching the PMQs and the U.K. debates. And to be frank, I'm not the only one. While watching the U.K. debate stream, a lot of the commenters were foreign viewers.

It helps me provide a global context to my own countries' election. If only there would be some pan-European debate between the EPP, the S&D and the ALDE. Too bad they'd probably get stuck at either choosing where to have the debate, or in which language the debate should be held.

I don't think you can portray this as some kind of battle of media formats. The fact is social technologies are out there and widely used by the UK population. The fact they have played less of a part in this election than predicted is down to the candidates and MPs themselves and what they are comfortable with. The only digital activity I have seen have been attempts by the parties on national level to try and replicate their old media tactics and strategies.

This isn't a "victory" for old media it is a failure of local democracy. If more candidates had used social media to engage at a local level I would argue they would have reached and engaged with far more potential voters than via leaflets and knocking on doors. I would also argue that we would have seen a far bigger turnout to vote than the small selection of the population who will be voting on polling day this time

You are not wrong, but you may be missing the point. I don't think you can oppose 'traditional' and 'new' media anymore in such a simplistic way.
Even 'new media' enthusiasts like myself were not predicting an 'Internet' election as you can see from this blog http://www.charliebeckett.org/?p=2546
No-one doubts that TV has the most direct impact, especially because of the leadership debates.
But you underestimate the 'networked' effect of new media both on journalists and the public. It's not just about the total audience numbers, it's about the quality of the interaction. Each TV debate - and just about every other mainstream media act - is now accompanied by social media activity. Some of it by journalists, mostly by citizens. So TV may be dominant but it's not consumed (or produced) passively anymore.
There is also far more communication about politics away from mainstream media by the public (take Mumsnet).
There is also much more use of social media and the Internet by journalists whose work is now much more interactive and open.
It all adds up to a subtle shift in who controls the content and impact of political mass media. Not exactly a revolution, but a significant move towards a less top-down, centrally-controlled and networked media.
cheers
Charlie